SC asked to drop petition vs implementation of HSA

The Office of the Solicitor General has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions filed by various cause-oriented groups against the implementation of the anti-terrorism law or the Human Security Act (HAS), citing lack of merit.

In its 154-page consolidated comment, the OSG headed by Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera argued that contrary to the arguments of petitioners Southern Hemisphere Engagement Inc., Kilusang Mayo Uno, Karapatan and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), Republic Act 9372 or the HSA does not violate the Bill of Rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

In addition, the OSG also asks the SC to deny the petitioners’ request for the issuance of a temporary restraining order on the implementation of the HSA as it is presumed that the law is valid and constitutional.

“In the first place, there is nothing in the HSA which constitutes a violation of the Constitution. Secondly, the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute guaranty of individual rights and liberties.

Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s will. It is subject to the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greatest number. In this case, the gravity of the crime of terrorism, the widespread effects thereof and the interest of national security justify restrictions on certain constitutional rights,” the OSG said.

The OSG also said contrary to the arguments of the petitioners, the HSA does not violate due process and that its implementation is needed to fight terrorism.

The OSG also noted that while the petitioners have raised their reservations on the HSA, not one of them has disagreed with the fact that terrorism has become more prevalent and that new measures are required to address this new transnational crime.

“To deal with the problem of terrorism, therefore, it was necessary that terrorism be declared a crime and that stringent penalties be imposed for its commission. The objective of the HSA was pursued by the legislature in a lawful manner as the means employed to suppress terrorism is reasonably, not unduly, oppressive and within the limits provided by the Constitution,” the OSG added.

The OSG also stressed that contrary to the allegation of the petitioners, the HSA was not crafted to be a legal and political weapon of oppression against groups of political activists.